Prev: Camera store in Toronto blowing out inventory
Next: Now, the next BIG contest is ON!
From: J. Clarke on 12 May 2010 06:35
On 5/12/2010 12:10 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<2010051123433457568-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
> <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>> No offense, but the Stereo Realist did this all in the 1950s and did it
>> on Kodachrome, which has/had far more pixels than any digital device.
>
> no offense, but kodachrome doesn't have any pixels at all nor does the
> stereo realist work the same way.

No, the stereo realist doesn't scan the subject with a laser and measure
the distance to everything, so it was actually useful for shooting
something farther away than the other side of the room.

The "revolutionary prototype" is not intended as a camera for general
photography, it's intended as some kind of security camera that avoids
the necessity of analyzing image pairs to extract 3d information,
something the human brain does in realtime.

As for Kodachrome, care to present some data on measured resolution with
equivalent optics?



From: J. Clarke on 12 May 2010 07:01
On 5/12/2010 1:29 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<2010051201090774831-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
> <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>> Metaphor seems lost on you.
>
> facts seems lost on you
>
>> Despite not having physical "pixels," Kodachrome "outpixels" any
>> digital media short of, perhaps, the $30K Hasselblad.
>
> not even remotely true. kodachrome is (was) good, but digital is
> better, and one need not spend even 1/10th of the $30k to do it.

So do you have some numbers to present that show that $3K digital
cameras have higher resolution that Kodachrome? And sites that compare
the output of a digital camera with a scan of a slide don't
count--they're showing you the resolution of the scanner, not of the film.

> what are you going to do when the single remaining kodachrome lab
> ceases to process it?
>
>> And 3-D is 3-D no
>> matter what technology you use to achieve it.
>
> nope
>
>> There are 3 spatial
>> dimensions and the stereo realist recorded them all. That it used a
>> different technology does not impact the end result, a 3-D picture.
>
> some 3d systems do not need special viewers or glasses, so yes, it does
> matter.

Which "3d systems" are these? Or are you talking about stereo pairs
that require that one strain ones eyes to merge the images?

From: J. Clarke on 12 May 2010 10:36
On 5/12/2010 6:52 AM, Peter wrote:
> "Michael" <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:2010051201090774831-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet...
>> On 2010-05-12 00:10:18 -0400, nospam said:
>>
>>> In article <2010051123433457568-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
>>> <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No offense, but the Stereo Realist did this all in the 1950s and did it
>>>> on Kodachrome, which has/had far more pixels than any digital device.
>>>
>>> no offense, but kodachrome doesn't have any pixels at all nor does the
>>> stereo realist work the same way.
>>
>> Metaphor seems lost on you.
>> Despite not having physical "pixels," Kodachrome "outpixels" any
>> digital media short of, perhaps, the $30K Hasselblad. And 3-D is 3-D
>> no matter what technology you use to achieve it. There are 3 spatial
>> dimensions and the stereo realist recorded them all. That it used a
>> different technology does not impact the end result, a 3-D picture.
>
>
> Using your logic, 3d viewing has bee around a lot longer than 1950.
> http://www.bitwise.net/~ken-bill/stereo.htm

Yes, it has. You seem to think that the stereopticon is something
obscure. They were quite popular. You might also want to google
"viewmaster", which went on the market in 1939 and which just about
every kid in America had or wanted in the '50s.
>
>

From: John McWilliams on 12 May 2010 11:29
Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:29:55 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> what are you going to do when the single remaining kodachrome lab
>> ceases to process it?
>
>
> Thanks for the reminder.
>
> I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
> I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
> I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
> I must ...


Mama don't take my Kodachrome,

Mama don't take my Kodachrome,

Mama don't take my Kodachrome awaaa ayyyaaay.....

--
john mcwilliams
From: Allen on 12 May 2010 21:50
J. Clarke wrote:
> On 5/12/2010 6:52 AM, Peter wrote:
>> "Michael" <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote in message
>> news:2010051201090774831-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet...
>>> On 2010-05-12 00:10:18 -0400, nospam said:
>>>
>>>> In article <2010051123433457568-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
>>>> <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No offense, but the Stereo Realist did this all in the 1950s and
>>>>> did it
>>>>> on Kodachrome, which has/had far more pixels than any digital device.
>>>>
>>>> no offense, but kodachrome doesn't have any pixels at all nor does the
>>>> stereo realist work the same way.
>>>
>>> Metaphor seems lost on you.
>>> Despite not having physical "pixels," Kodachrome "outpixels" any
>>> digital media short of, perhaps, the $30K Hasselblad. And 3-D is 3-D
>>> no matter what technology you use to achieve it. There are 3 spatial
>>> dimensions and the stereo realist recorded them all. That it used a
>>> different technology does not impact the end result, a 3-D picture.
>>
>>
>> Using your logic, 3d viewing has bee around a lot longer than 1950.
>> http://www.bitwise.net/~ken-bill/stereo.htm
>
> Yes, it has. You seem to think that the stereopticon is something
> obscure. They were quite popular. You might also want to google
> "viewmaster", which went on the market in 1939 and which just about
> every kid in America had or wanted in the '50s.
>>
>>
>
I had a TruView which I bought at the Grand Canyon in 1938, before
Viewmaster hit the market, TruView used 35mm B/W film originally, though
they might have added color later to try to compete with Viewmaster. I
had several rolls for the TruView, all featuring areas in the west. At
nine years old, I was totally fascinated. Much better than the
stereopticon views that I had been looking at in the public library.
Allen
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Camera store in Toronto blowing out inventory
Next: Now, the next BIG contest is ON!